State v. Dalton

• Decision Date: 17 November 1911
• Citation: 65 Wash. 663,118 P. 829
• Parties: STATE v. DALTON.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

118 P. 829

65 Wash. 663

STATE v. DALTON.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 17, 1911

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Mitchell Gilliam Judge.

James H. Dalton was convicted of burglary in the second degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Charles L. Henry, for appellant.

John F Murphy and Alfred H. Lundin, for the State.

GOSE J.

The defendant, with three other persons, was charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree. He was tried separately and found guilty by the jury, and has appealed from the judgment entered upon the verdict.

He contends, first, if we understand his position, that he could not be lawfully convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices; and, second, that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment.

Upon the first proposition the court instructed that he could not be convicted 'on the testimony of an accomplice, unless he is corroborated by other evidence which in itself and without the aid of the testimony of the accomplice tends to implicate the defendant with the commission of the offense.' It is due to the learned trial judge to say that this instruction was given before the opinions were filed in State v. Ray, 62 Wash. 582, 114 P. 439, and State v. Stapp, 118 P. 337, where a contrary doctrine is announced. The cases from this state are collated and discussed in the case last cited.

Accepting the instructions as the law of the case, we pass to a consideration of the other questions involved. The court correctly instructed that 'an accomplice is one who with criminal intent acts with others and participates in the commission of a crime.' Underhill on Evidence (2d Ed.) 69; Bradley v. State, 2 Ga.App. 622, 58 S.E. 1064; Green v. State, 51 Ark. 189, 10 S.W. 266; Martin v. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 29, 83 S.W. 390; Ochsner v Commonwealth, 128 Ky. 761, 109 S.W. 326; Springer v State, 102 Ga. 447, 30 S.E. 971; Allen v. State, 74 Ga. 769.

A reference to the evidence discloses that Wells, a codefendant, who had pleaded guilty to the information, testified that the appellant participated in the crime; that, after the store had been burglarized, the goods were taken to a room occupied jointly by Hansett and himself, and there divided in the presence of Hansett; and that the appellant then carried away a part of the goods. He further testified that Hansett had no participation in the commission of the crime, but that he was in bed when the parties arrived at the room with the goods. Hansett corroborates this statement. He states, further, that the appellant freely discussed his connection with the burglary at the room, that he, the witness, knew the goods had been stolen, and that he later went with Wells to get them at the place the latter had placed them. This is far from showing a guilty connection with the crime.

Knowledge that a crime has been...